[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-Id: <20110420160946.4629.A69D9226@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Apr 2011 16:08:51 +0900 (JST)
From: KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com>
To: Michal Hocko <mhocko@...e.cz>
Cc: kosaki.motohiro@...fujitsu.com,
Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
Hugh Dickins <hughd@...gle.com>, linux-mm@...ck.org,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH followup] mm: get rid of CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP || CONFIG_IA64
> Hi Kosaki,
>
> On Wed 20-04-11 09:33:26, KOSAKI Motohiro wrote:
> > > While I am in the cleanup mode. We should use VM_GROWSUP rather than
> > > tricky CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP||CONFIG_IA64.
> > >
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > Now, VM_GROWSUP share the same value with VM_NOHUGEPAGE.
> > (this trick use the fact that thp don't support any stack growup architecture)
>
> I am not sure I understand you. AFAICS, VM_GROWSUP is defined to non 0
> only if CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP||CONFIG_IA64 (include/linux/mm.h).
> And we use it to determine whether expand_stack_growsup[*] should be
> defined (in include/linux/mm.h).
>
> The patch basically unifies the way how we export expand_stack_growsup
> function and how define it (in mm/mmap.c).
>
> So either we should use CONFIG_STACK_GROWSUP||CONFIG_IA64 at both places
> or we should use VM_GROWSUP trick. I am for the later one.
>
> Am I missing something?
>
> ---
> [*] the previous patch renamed expand_growsup to expand_stack_growsup.
Right you are. sorry.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists